Elizabeth and Akbar:The Religion of the Ruler?

HolV imporlolll ore Ihe religiolls views alld preferences of a ruler 01a lime when people lake rcligion very seriously alld are religiouslydivided 7 Ca 11 a ruler's rei igioLls preference, even if d ifferen I frommany of /Iis or her slIbjects, be Ihe Imsis of IIlIity in a rellgiollslydiVIded stale?

-.:(,

IfC'

. ,; r"

It seemed like a great idea at the time. In 1530 in Germany, at theend of the first of many European religious wars that accompaniedthe Reformiltion sparked by Milrtin Luther, Catholic and Lutherannegotiators in Germany devised what they thought was a simplepliln for religious peace. The Latin phrase "cuius regio, eius reli-.gio" ("the religion of the prince is the religion of the people") be-came the key words of the peace treaty of Augsburg. This meantthat the religion of the ruler would be the only officiill religion inthe ruler's land: jf your prince was Lutheriln, all churches in yourstate became Lutheran, and any who wished to remain Ciltholichad to pilck up and move to the nearest stilte with a Catholic ruler.The reverse was true, of course, if your ruler was Catholic and youwere Lutheran.

While this political response to religious conflict was seriouslyflawed (what if you were neither a Lutheran nor a Catholic but afollower of John Calvin?), it did illustrate the problems faced byrulers in religiously divided stiltes in the sixteenth century. And thepolitical problems posed by religious divisions were not limited toEurope. Muslim armies had swept as far east as western China andsouth into northwestern India as eilrly as the eighth century. By thelate twelfth century, central Asian Turks had established the DelhiSultilnate, a Muslim-dominated state in the northern hei1ftlilnd ofthe Hindu :;ubcontincnt of India.

How important, then, was "the religion of the prince" in the tu-. multuous sixteenth century? Two major rulers, Queen Elizabeth Iof England (1533-]603) and Emperor Abu-ul-Fath JalaI-ud-DinMuhammad Akbar of Mughal India (1534-1606), give us the oppor-tunity to answer this question Both consciously tried to createwhat we might call a hybrid religion as a way of promoting soCial.stability and loyalty to the ruler in their divided states. Elizabeth,daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, came.to the thronedetermined to bring religious peace to a country which had experi-enced years of sometimes violent changes. Although Henry VIIIbroke with the Roman church in 1532 in order to divorce QueenCatherine and marry Elizabeth's mother, he did not become a

. Lutheran. Henry wanted England to remain Catholic, with himselfin charge instead of the pope. He persecuted Lutherans and otherProtestants until his death in ] 547. For the next ten years, Eliza-beth's half-brother, Edward VI (reigned 1547-1553), and half-sister,Mary(r ]553--1558), took England on a dizzying religious ride. Ed-ward and his advisors wanted the Church of England to be asmuch like Protestant churches as possible, while Mary (daughter ofHenry's first wife, Catholic Queen Catherine of Aragon) officiallyreturned England to the Catholic fold, executing some 300 Protes-tants as heretics in the process. Akbar (the name means "Great")faced the task of consolidating and expanding the Mughal Empire,which his father, Humayun, had lost and only partially regainedbefore his untimely death. He came to believe that a state policy of"universal peace,". which accepted and appreciated the many dif-ferent faiths of lndia (Hindus, Jains, Shia and Sunni Muslims,Zoroastrians [called Parsees in India) and Christians); was the bestway to promote loyalty to the ruler

Both Elizabeth and Akbar had weapons other than religion tocontrol their subjects Akbar's military skills were considerable andhis conquest and rule of northern India from coa.st to coast wasaided by an elaborate system of administration and revenue collecction. Elizabeth used her cunning, energy, and intelligence to controlfriends and enemies alike. She also had a strong base of popularsupport, which she manipulated to her advantage. Both Elizabethand Akbar were successful leaders who. laid the foundation for thegreatness of their respective states. They are generally seen by his-torians as having that special "something extra, that flash of the eyeor turn of the head, which marks the crossing of the gulf between

, .

CIIM"'I.~ nIlNTI'I.N: flizn/Jelil IlIId Aklmr: Tile Religion of the. .r/ ] 47

ability and genius."l The extent to which the religious policies ofElizabeth and Akbar promoted unity in their respective states 1S acomplicated question. Historians disagree, especially in their evalu-ation of the policy of Akbar, and it is clear that neither ruler got ex-actly what he or she wanted. A look at the careers of these colorfuland powerful sixteenth-century leaders can help us better under-stand their strengths and weaknesses as we attempt to answer thequestion posed at the beginning of this essay.

Religion was an issue for Elizabeth from the mom.ent of herbirth, which made her the Protestant heir to the throne In place ofher Catholic sister, Mary. Her position changed suddenly when shewas three; her mother, Anne, was declared a traitor and sent to theblock [beheaded], and Elizabeth joined her sister, Mary, in being of-ficially declared a bastard by a law of 1536, Despite this turn ofevents, Elizabeth was taught to love and honor her father as theking. She spent her early years pleasantly enough with, KatherineParr, Henry's last wife, Katherine brought all of Henry s chl!~rentogether as a family and saw to their education. Elizabeth receiveda classical education and could read Greek and Latm and speakFrench, Italian, and Spanish well enough to conduct business withambassadors from those countries in their own languages. In 1547,shortly (lfter Henry's death, Katherine married Thomas Seymour,and Elizabeth lived with them, experiencing some unwelcomesexual advances from Seymour when she was fourteen. WhenKatherine died in childbirth in 1548, Seymour wished to mClrryElizabeth-by then living elsewhere-but she "replied e;Clsively," askill she refined in future years.2 Because of Seymour s mtnguesagainst the government of Edward VI, Elizabeth was briefly viewedwith suspicion. She was in much greater danger after her slste:,Mary, became queen in 1553 and some members of. Elizabeth shousehold implicated her in some Protestant plots agamst the newCatholic queen. Elizabeth responded by meeting with Mary, declar-ing her wish to become Catholic, and asking her Sister to send hersome vestments, crucifixes, and other Mass "gear" to use In her pn-vate chapel. Elizabeth was pla'ced under guard in the Tower ofLondon prison for a time, and many of Mary's advisors wanted herput to death as an enemy of the state. Interestingly,. it was Mary'shusband, Spanish King Philip II, who protected Elizabeth, some-thing she always remembered, even years later when theIr coun-

tries were at warJ

Mary, like her half-brother, Edward, died after a short reign,and Elizabeth became queen On November 17, 1558, Even thoughher background as the "bastard" daughter of Anne Boleyn seemedto make it a foregone conclusion that she would restore ProtestantChristianity as the official religion of England, one of Elizabeth's bi-ographers points out that she could have left England;) Catholiccountry, After all, many English subjects accepted Mary's return tothe Catholic fold, and Elizabeth had professed to be a RomanCatholic for five years, Nevertheless, Elizabeth created a "ReligiousSettlement" in ]559 that made EngJand a Protestant country be-cause (1) she had been raised as a Protestant and was a sincere be-liever and (2) she would be accepted as the legitimate monarch byCatholics but would be supported more fervently as the "onlyhope" of the many Protestants, since the next in line to be ruler wasRoman Catholic Mary Stuart, Queen of the Scots and Elizabeth'scousin,4 '

Elizabeth's "Religious Settlement," approved by the EnglishParliament within six months of her coronation, created what weknow today as the "Church of England" or (outside of Englandtodily) the "Protestilnt Episcopal" Church. Like the LutheranChurches in Germany, it was a state church and Elizabeth was de-clzlred the "Supreme Covernor" of the church." All clergy hild totakl: an uath rl:cugnizing the qucl:n's positiun and promising to "re-nounce and forsake all foreign jurisdiction. . and authorities [thePopel and bear true faith and allegizlnce to the queen's highness"and to her successors, Parliament also passed, in addition to this"Act of Supremacy," an important "Act of Uniformity." This re-stored Protestant forms of worship, rotified EJizabeth's earlier deci-sion to put most of the worship service in English, and providedpenalties for churchmen who refused to accept these measures andfines for laypcople who refused to attend Sunday servicesh

Elizabeth's church still looked like the "Catholic" Church of herfather's day It hild bishops one! priests instead of the ministers andelder used by Calvinists, and they wete required by law to wearclerical garb at church services. Churches still had crucifixes, thequeen kept candles in her pnvate chopel, and she issued orders re-taining stained glass windows and other "popish" elE'ments inchurches, even though these were hated by the Calvinists, or "Puri-tans." The Puritans not only wished a church "purified" of all[<oman Catholic ritual and theology but they also vVilnted a stilte

church which would control, with firm punishments, what peoplebelieved, how they worshipped, and all forms of "manners andmoral." Elizabeth believed this strict of a policy could lead to a reh-gious civil war in England.7 Instead, the queen tri~? to create achurch that had, both in appearance and doctrine, a dIstinctIvecharacter of its own-neither Lutheran, Roman Catholic, nor Re-formed [Calvinist or Presbyterian)" In 1563, she supported a groupof moderate bishops who drew up a statement of beliefs, theThirty-nine Articles. This contained many beliefs Catholics couldhave accepted, some which Lutherans and CalVInists couJd accept;it remained deliberately ambiguous on controversial issues such asthe exact nature of Predestination and the question of whether ornot Christ was really present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

8

Elizabeth was a sincere Protestant but not a person given to deeptheological reflection. She once told the Catholic French ambas-sador that "there was only one Jesus Christ and one faIth, all therest they disputed about were trifles."9 Her main concern .was reli-gious peace and the unity of her kingdom: not theological sub-tJeties If English subjects would show their loyalty to God andcountry by attending church on Sunday, and thereby accept thequeen as "the only regulator of public worship and church govern-ment," in she did not care much what people saId or dId In the pn-vacy of their homes . .' .

Elizabeth was not mistaken in fearing the politICal diVISivenessof religion. During her reign, the neighboring country of Francewas torn apart by religious wars between Catholics and Protestants(Huguenots). The Germanstates and the Netherlands remained di-vided religiously, and Catholic Spanish Kmg PhIlip II, her formerbrother-in-law, was being urged by the pope to undertake a cru-sade against Protestant England. Elizabeth herself was officially"excommunicated" by the pope in 1570 during one of the severalunsuccessful plots against her throne by those who wished to makeher cousin, Mary QU'een of Scots, the next queen of England. .

Given these foreign and domestic threats, it was understand-able that Elizabeth would follow a religious policy designed to pre-vent persecution of Catholics by zealous Protestants, somethingwhich might well give Catholic Spain an excuse to attack her. Un-like her sister, Mary, she went out of her way to aVOId sending peo-ple to the stake for their religious views, even though she was quitefirm with any person or group that questioned her royal authonty.

When PilrJiilment (which contained many members favorable toPuritanism) passed a law in 1563 stating that any person who twicerefused to take the oath recognizing the queen's supremacy overthe church was to be executed, Elizilbeth instructed MiltthewPilrker, the Archbishop of Cilnterbury, to be SlIre thilt no one wasasked to take the oilth more than once.11 The wisdom of Elizabeth'spolicy was shown in 1588, when the Spilnish sent a massive armadaof ships to invade Englilnd in hopes of returning England to theCiltholic fold. Ciltholics supported Elizabeth in this moment of nil-tionill p(:ril; there W(\s no uprising of Ciltholics to overthrow their/'rulestant ruler. The Spanish were prevented from landing by theskillful work of English sailors and "il Protestant wind." AlthoughCatholic priests were sent to England to secretly celebrate MilSS and

. ildminister Silcraments to English Catholics and although over ahundred of these men were executed for treason, most EnglishCatholics remained loyal to the queen, and the totill number ofCiltholics declined during her reign. Elizabeth WilS illso willin·gto drill hilfshly with Pratestnnt critics of l1('r policy. Two DutchAnilbaptists iltlending iln illegal prayer meeting in 1575 wereJudged guilty of heresy for denying Ihelt a Christiilr\ could be a gov-emmentofficial, and they were burned at the stilk£'. And, in 1579,when a lawyer named John Stubbs wrote il work attacking theFrench rOYil] family and the queen's proposed marriage to theFrench Catholic Duke of Anjou, she ordered thilt his right hand becut off with a meat cleaver. It was said thilt, after his hand was sev-ered at the wrist, he lifted his hat with his left hand ilnd shouted,"C(ld save tht' queen" before he filintl'd.'2 Elizabeth often usedmarriage nL'gotiiltiuns ilS a diplomatic tool; some believed that shemight have married the duke if there had not been such strong ob-Jections to this match with a Catholic foreigner.

Her religiQus policy \VilSnot the only reason Elizabeth is fondlyremembered and has an erCl named after her. We speak of "Eliza-bethan England" because this queen ruled for thirty-four years andwas ilble to develop ilnd use her skills as a ruler and il woman tocreate a strong sense of personal loyalty in her subjects. She had ex-cellent advisors Clnd adventuresome servants, such as Sir WalterRilleigh and Sir Francis Drake, who established England as a strongnaval power, The queen also learned early in her reign that shecould maintain her control by meeting with her councilors individ-ually and by ilsking them for their individual views in writing Hot-

tempered at times, she was known to even slup her courtiers andorder them out of her presence. Members of Parliament whosespeeches displeased her were sent to prison. Yet she always re-leased them, as she nearly illwilYs restored unlucky courtiers to"her favor" by inviting them back to court. This was a person "inwhich the spontaneous outburst of a high-tempered womanblended with the artifices of a calculilting politician "13 AlthoughElizabeth WilS doubtless difficult to work with, she certainly under-stood how to ilppcal to her subjects. Each yeilr she moved her courtaround the country on her colorful "progresses," visiting the homesof her nobles, letting the people see her and entertain her withplays, speeches of praise, and poetry. These journeysallowed peo-ple to see their queen in person, as she gratefully acknowledgedtheir devotion. She illso used her position as a woman to strengthenthis loyalty. Historians disagree on why Elizabeth never married,but, whatever her reason, she did deliberately create the impressionamong ordinary people thilt she cared more about them than abouthaving a husband; she could be seen as "married" to Englilnd. Onthe eve of the anticipated Sp,lIlish invasion, when the armada hildalready entered the English channel, Elizabeth visited some of hertroops and made one of the most famous speeches in English his-tory, saying, "I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman,but I have the heart and stomach of il·king; and of a king ofEngland too' And [I] think foul scorn that Parma [Spanish general]or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the bor-ders of my realm!" The people loved it; perhaps in that moment shebecame the "good Queen Bess" remembered fondly by generationsof English people.'4

Since Mughal Emperor Akbar lived in a place so distant anddifferent from Elizabeth's England, it is unusual to find any simi-larities between the two rulers beyond the dates of their reigns. YetAkbar, like Elizabeth, experienced a troubled youth, marked by anawareness of religious differences. Descended from the great Mon-gol and Turkish conquerors Cenghis Khan and Tamerlane, he wasborn in the house of a Hind'u ruler, while his father was on the run,trying to recapture !clnd in northeast India. Akbar's father was aSunni Muslim, while his mother was a Shiite (two large, theologi-cally different branches of Islam]. His tutor, Abu! Latif, taught himthe principle of "universal peace," which encouraged tolerance ofall religions. While growing up, he was captured and rescued three

times as his father and uncles fought for control of the empireWhile these struggles were over family inheritance and not overreligious issues, it was clear to the young prince that the support ofMuslim scholars or holy men (ulema) could help a ruler gain pop-ul<tr support; it was also clecn to the young Akbar that anyone whoIVould successfully rule India would have to deal with the fact that

.most of his subjects would not be Muslims. When his father, Hu-mayun, died in ]~56, Akbar was only thirteen. The empire wasruled in Akbar's name by a regent, Bairam Khan, a Shiite Muslimwho successfully completed the conquests of much of what istoday Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bairam Khan's increasingly arro-gant decisions and lavish Jiving led Akbar to replace the regentand begin to rule in his own right in 156015

The young man who would expand the Mughal Empire to itsgreatest extent has been described as a broad-shouldered person of"uncommon dignity," vvith long hair, a loud voice of "peculiar rich-ness," "bright and flashing eyes," and a "powerful, magnetic, andInspiring" personality.!!> Historians have also been impressed bythe seeming contradictions in Akbcn's personality. Akbar was adeeply spiritual man but also a brutal warrior. He said that "amonarch should be ever intent on conquest, otherwise his neigh-burs rise in arms against him," yet, when not fighting, he loved to<:ngage in theological and philosophical discussions with learnedmen from many religions. He loved hunting but spent many yearsas a virtual vegetarian. He "spent whole nights repeating the nameof the Almighty God," had mystical experiences, and went on pil-grimages. Yet this same man authorized the massacre of thousandsof people, many of them women and children, after conqueririg theHindu fortress of Chitor, and he ordered the building of a moundmade from the heads of his fallen enemies after the battle of Pani-pat in 1556. Akbar could be extremely energetic, humane, andconsiderate, yet he also suffered from depression.17 Clearly, thisgreatest ruler of.the Mughal Empire was a complex man.

But Akbar was no more complex than the situation he inher-. ited. Ethnically, the territory of the Mughal Empire containedTurks, Mongols, and Uzbeks (these three known collectively as Tu-ranis), as well as hundreds of independent or semi-independentHindu rulers (rajas). Some of these were territorial chieftains andothers 'were the heads of large families, or clans. Those noblemenexpected virtual independence and were reluctant to take orders

from any central authority, while the Turks who had come fromPersia, or Iran, were often skilled bureaucrats used to working in astrongly centralized administration. Both of these groups werecomposed of Muslims who viewed Hindus as polytheistic "idol-aters."18 When Akbar came to the throne, his territory was quite

. small; it consisted of a small crescent of land extending from centralAfghanistan through the heart of modern Pakistan down to thenorth central Indian cities of Panipat and Delhi. By the end of hisreign, Akbnr's empire contnined all of north and central India, in-cluding the Indus and Ganges river valleys.

Creating cllld mi\intnining a large empire inhabited by such var-ied ethnic groups required a variety of skills. Akbar needed largearmies composed of artillery, archers mounted on horseback or ele-phants, and infantry with firearms. The young ruler spent qlost ofthe 1560s and 1570s subduing the Hindu (Rajput) kingdoms in cen-tral India from coast to coast. In 1580 and 1581, he put down revoltsin Kabul and elsewhere in the north led by family members seekinghis throne and others taking advantage of Sunni Muslim discontent

.with his religious and administrative policies. Akbar was unable tofinish his military consolidation of the empire until 1601, four yearsbefore his death.19

In the beginning of his career, Akbar was a skilled militaryleader intent on increasing his power by enlarging his empire. Untilthe mid-1570s, he was also a traditional Muslim ruler, subduing thearmies of Hindu RaJputs in the name of Allah. However, even inhis twenties he began to see both personal and political reasons forsome changes in social and religious policy. In 1562, he married thedaughter of the Rajput ruler of Jaipur after that kingdom submittedto Mughal overlordship He was the first Mughal ruler to addHindu princesses (he later married three more) to his harem and toallow them to maintain their religion. The following year, hedropped the Muhgal practice of enslaving the families of defeatedenemies, and in 1563 he stopped taxing Hindus when they went onpilgrimi\ges to the many shrines of India. Akbar also ended the tra-ditional tax levied ()n non-Muslims in 1564, a more radical step,since this tax was levied in all Islamic countries.

Since Akbar remi'lined a devout Muslim during these early years,these policy changes were made largely for political reasons, to winthe support of the Rajput rulers. However, Akbar's own religiousviews and practices were beginning to change. In 1562, he became so

impressed by the simple life <lnd wisdom of Muslim mystic ShZlikhSillim Chishti thClt he mClde Clpilgrim<lge to his shrine eClch yenr forseventeen yeMs ilnd even built a new capitClI, Fatehpur-Sikri, nearthis site. Shilikh 5illim correctly predicted thClt the emperor, who haddifficulty hilving sons, would h(lvC three SOilS; when the first wasborn, Akbm named hill) Salim in honor of the Shaikh. In 1575, theemperor constructed il special building, the IbCldat KhanCl, in whichhe brought together thinkers from VMious religions to discuss the be-liefs and practices of each. A Portuguese Jesuit priest, arriving at thecourt In 1580, recorded this speech by AkbM

ation ceremonies, feasts on members' birthdays, and a form of bow-. d' f . h Ding to the emperor preVIOusly reserve or prayer in t e mosque.

Historians disagree on whether or not Oill-i-J1ohi was a "new"religion (something ilssumed by m,my history textbooks) or a wayto appeal to non-Muslims and to focus loyalty on the emperor.Many traditional Muslims, led by court scholar Abdul QadirBadauni, were bitterly critical of the "Divine Faith," which wassupported and directed by Abut Fazl, Akbar's chief counselor, fa-mous flatterer, and court historiCln. Some Muslim historians todaysee Din-i-l/ahi as ClsuperficiClI form of emperor worship, forbiddenby the Qur'Cln, which undermined the Muslim character of Akbar'sstate. More "seculilT" historians praise the emperor for a religiousand sociill policy which, because it WClSClccepting of many tradi-tions, was fClfahead of its time. It did not mClke loyalty to the stCltedependent on being a member of any official state religion, includ-ing Islam; membership in Din-i-Jlaili itself was voluntary and some-where between two dozen and two thousand (sources vary signifi-cantly) noblemen joined24 .

To better evaluate Akbar's religious policy, we need to under-stand thClt his administrative system combined features of the per-

. sonal relations between rulers and their chief nobles found in feu-dalism with the practices of a modern government which employspaid officials who feel more of an obligation to the institutions ofgovernment than they do to the ruler. Akbar's leading civil andmil itary a ppoin tees, known ClSma I1sabdars [Persia n for "office-holder"; mal1sab is an "office"], were chosen on the basis of theirloyalty to the ruler. They were organized into grades, based on howmany troops Clnd horses they were expected to supply to Akbar intime of war. To provide the mallsabdars with money to help themmeet this demand, they ,were assigned revenue from IClnd (jagirs).The emperor retained control of all. land and could "fire" mallsab-

dars and promote or demote them to higher or lower ranks. Akbardivided his empire into twelve IClrge provinces, each led by a gov-ernor, who,aided by other officials, administered justice, collectedrevenue, recruited troops, and kept order. The whole system wasreinforced by spies who reported to the court25 In 1572-1573 Akbarintroduced "branding regulations" (dagh) requiring mansabdars topresent their troops and horses for muster (only the horses werebranded) to prove that they were using their money to actually paytroops and not for other, non-military, purposes. By the end of the

I perceive thilt there Me vMyll'); customs "nd beliefs of varyingrc,jigious paths. . BUI tlw followl'fS (If each religion reg<1rdtheinstitution of Ihl'ir own religion <1Sbdkr than those of <lny other.Not only so, but they strive to con veri the rest to their own way ofbc.lid If thest.: rdust to be (onvl'fted, they not only despise them,but illso regard thc'm as. . enemies. And this caused me to feelmilny serious doubts and scruples. Wherefore I desire thZlton ap-pointed dill'S the books of Cll!the religious laws be brought for-II'Md, and the dllctors meet and huld discussions, 50 thilt I mayheM them, and that each one mav determine which is the truestand mightiest religion211 .

E\'en the Muslim historiClns who were criticClj of Akbar's religiouspolicy, which hild moved him awClY form trilditiona] practices bylhl,1580s, admit that he WClS"deeply religious by nClture" Clnd had Clsoul which "longed for direct spirituilJ experience." In 1S78,AkbClrhCld what has been described as il mystic<ll experience, or "ecstasy,"during Cl rOYClI hunt. He freed all the animals that had beenrounded up for him to kill, distributed a lilrge sum of gold to thepoor, Clnd cut off his long hair21 By 1579, the angry intolerance ofothers displayed by the Muslim scholars had so discouraged Akbarthat he issued a decree that gave him the authority to resolve reli-gious disputes; his decisions would be "binding upon all the peo-ple, provided alwClys that such an order is not opposed to the.explicit injunction of the Qur'Cln."22

AkbClf's most dramCltic decision was t11e] 582 establishment ofthe oil1-i-lInhi, usually transJClted as "Divine Faith." Members of theol/I-I-I/nlll had to take vows to dedicate their property, life, andhonor to Akbilf, had to espouse a simple monotheism, and had torenounce "traditionill and imitCltive" Islam. Rituals were borrowedfrom those of the Parsecs, Christians, <lnd Hindus. There were initi-

Jl'cade, strict implemcl1tiltion of the dagh-along with Akb<lr'smahzar and other religious changes-led some of the TurClni I11n1l5-

l1/Jdnr.:; to revolt. After that, he eased the enforcement of the brClnd-ing regulation26

Some scholars see no connection between Akbar's religiouspolicies (his ending of religious taxes and promoting of "unive;salpeace" and the "Divine Faith") and ·the loyalty of his military Clndcivilian officials. Others disagree and say that the emperor's "liberalreligious ideas" were linked to his imperial system of Cldministra-lion. Akbar changed an empire which had been previously ruled byand for Muslims into one in which Hindu Rajputs could and didplClya major role. He favored Hindus as much as he could bec(lusehe could not alwClys depend upon the Turkish and Mongol nobilityto remain loyal. Also, by respecting non-Muslim religions, praisingthe ideal of "universal peace," and marrying Hindu princesses,AkbM, some say, "transformed" the nobility "into a constructiveforce" and helped erase the "foreign character of the Mughal Em-pire." From Akbar's time, the Mughal Empire was no longer seenby its ruling class as Oll/Y a Muslim Empire. Muslims continued fohold the majority of the mansabs, but the holders of power i~ theprovinces defined themselves as Mughal mansabdars, not as mereservants of a Muslim ruling class. Akbar's court rituals, his use ofHindu mallsabdnrs, and the Dill-i-J/nhi created the impression "not[of] Muslims ruling over Hindus but fof] Muslims and Hindus to-gether, serving a ruler who, whatever his personal beliefs, was notmerely (l Muslim or Hindu." The empire lasted as long as this beliefsur·vived.2' .

While it is clear that both Elizabeth I of England and Akbar, the"greatest" Mughal, used a hybrid, or "mixed," religion to try tounify their divided states and promote loyalty to the ruler, eachillso had personal as well as political motives. Elizabeth's personalreligious views, considered "hereticClI" by Catholics and too "Pa-pisf' by the Puritans, were nevertheless those of a sincere Protes-tant Christian; Akbar's personal views, to the extent that we can de-t('rmine, given the controversy which surrounds them, were thoseof a sincere seeker after religious truth who clearly disliked theclaims to exclusive truth advanced by Muslim theologians

In both sixteenth-century England and' India, the religion of therulerdid matter. Elizabeth's attempt to create a distinctive "Churchof England" that was neither Catholic nor Calvinist suffered a

severe setback forty-six yeMs after her death, when the English be-headed Charles I in 1644 ilnd established a Puritan commonwealthunder Oliver Cromwell Akbar's Din-i-Jlahi disappeared soon afterhis death, but his mixed Muslim and Hindu Mughal Empire sur-vived much longer. Religion could be a unifying as well as a divi-sive force in this period. Perhaps "the religion of the ruler" canonly truly become "the religion of the people" in situations inwhich the ruler's beliefs are only slightly out of step with the be-liefs of the majority of his or her subjects. The "Church of England"still exists because Elizabeth did not overreach herself; she was intouch with the sentiment of her people, who would tolerate only alimited amount of religious regulation The Puritans offered moreof this than the English, in the final analysis, would tolerateAkbar's Din-i-llahi eVClporated after his deClth because an attempt tojoin an "inclusive" faith such as Hinduism with an "exclusive" onesuch as Islam has never succeeded, at least not for long. Akbar'sfailure perhaps foreshadows that of twentieth-century Indianleader, Mohandas Gandhi, who wished for Hindus and Muslims tolive in peace after gaining independence from the British. Gandhiwas assassinated in 1947 by a Hindu fanatic Akbar was spClTed thisfa te; only his bones were dug up and bu rned by a n a ngry mobsome fifty years after his death.

1. Percival Spear, India' A Modem His/on), New Edition, revised and en-larged (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972),128. Thoughincluded in a chapter on Akbar, Spear's statement also specificallyrefers to Elizabeth as having this quality.

2. Wallace MacCaffrey, Elizn/Jetll I (London: Edwilrd Arnold, 1993),9-103. Jasper Ridley, Elizabeth I: The Shrewdness of Virt/lc (New York: Viking

Penguin, 1988), 41, 47-59, 66-674. MaCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 48-51; see also Ridley, Elizabeth, 33, on her "sin-

cere devotion to the Protestant religion"5. Carole Levin, The Hear/llnd Stomach of a King: Eliznbcth J and the Polilics

of Sex and POllia (Philadelphii\: University of Pennsylvania Press,J 994), 14.

6 Carl 5 Meyer, Elizabeth J and the Religiol/s Se/llement of 1559 (51. LouisConcordia, 1960), 39, 45-48.

7. See William Haller, Eliza/lelh J IIIId Ihe Pllritalls (Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, 1964), J-2, 9-10, 21

8. William P Haugaard, Ellza/Jelli alJ(I Ihe Ellg/lsh Rcfonllatl(11I The SITII,~glcfor a Stable Selliemeni of Rel/gloll (Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress, 1968),78, 24H-252; Susan Doriln, Elizabeth / and ReligullI (Lon-don: r~oulledge, 1'-;1'-;14),18-19;Meyer, Religiolls SclilelrlCllt, ]49-11i7.

i.J Ha~gaard, Elizabeth and the ElIgl/sh Rcformatioll, 25.]{J MilcC'idfrey, EJlw/Jelh /, 300.11. Joel IlurlsfielcJ, Ulzahcth I alld tile Unity of fll ..,\lalid (Lundun: English

Universities Press, ]%0), 5712 Rldll:')', E!Jzabeth / Sllrl'71ldlless of VirlliC, 119-123,206-2]4; MacCaffrey,

Eliwllclli 1,202-205; Hurtsfield, Ellzabelll / and Unity of Englalld, 103. .13 MacCaffrey, Elizabctll /,360-362; Carolly Erickson, The First Elizabl'lh

(New York Summit Books, 1983), 172-173,313-314.14. MacCaffrey, EI/wbeth /, 376--377; Hurstiield, Elizabeth and Unity uf Ellg-

land, 157. On the reasons Elizabeth may not have marrIed, see SusanBassnett, Elizabelh /: A Feminist Perspective (New York: Berg, ]988),2-11, which contains a good summary of the speculation and theoriesof various historians.

15 S M. Burke, Akbar. The Greatest Mogul (New Delhi: Munshiram Mono-harlal Publishers, 1989), 17-25,39-42, cont,lins il cleM account ofAkbar's youth and the period of Baira~ Khan's regency See alsoAshirbildilal Srivastava, The History of Ilidia (J()oo /lfl-J71!7 AJ)) (Agra:Shivil wi Agarwala, J964), 469. .

11). Burke, Akbar, 32, Khallq Ahmed Nizami, /lkbar aud Rdlglun (Delhi:Idarah-i-Adabiyat, 1989), 1.

17. Burke, Akbar, 58, J04-105; Srivastava, Hlslon) of India, 447; Athar Abbasr~izvi, Rellglolls and Ill/el/eetlial History of Ihe Mllsllms in /lkbor's Rcl;<n(New Deihl Munshiram Manoharl,ll Publishers, 1975), 110; Nizami,Akl'ar aud ReliglOlI, 2, ]65; Muni Lal, Ak/Jar (New DeJhJ Vlkas, 1980),64,94,128,144--145.

18 Ahsim Razil Khan, Chieflalns in the Mlishal Empire (Simla; Indiiln Insti-tute Of t\dvanced Study, 1977), 1-5; Douglas E Streusand, The FOfllw-/U'II ()l IIIC Mlly:hol EII/I,irc (Delhi: Oxford University Press, ]989),23,26--32.

]9. The most convenient summary of Akbar's conquests is in Snvastilva,Hlslory (If II/dia, 447-464

20. RiZ\'I, Religiol/s aud 1ntel/eell/al His/ory, 126--131; Burke, Akbar, 102-103The [badat Khana was misnilmed the "House of Worship" by earlierh,;,toriilns. It was not a plilce of worshir but il debatinh 11,111.For thL' ill-titULk or till' Jesuit missionaries towMd i\kbilf, ilnu their expcctiltionsthat he would become a Christian, se(' the fascinilting [fllcrs frol1/ IheA1l/Silol C"'ITt. The Fir:,/ fC:'l/ii Mi:,:;i,J!I 10 Ak/lor 05S0-S3), ed JohnCurveia-Afonso (SI Louis Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1981).

21 Nizami, Akhar all;1 Relisioll, is the modern histOrIan most critical ofAkbar's religious experiments, believing they constituted an unneces-silry depilrt~re from traditionill IslilJl1 that separated him from the"Muslim masses"; see pp 2,159-160,232,245-246. See also the similarviews of Ishtiaq H. Qureshi, in AHar Architecl of the MI/ghal Empire(Karachi Mil'ilref Ltd, 1978), 165-166. See Burke, Akbar, 104, onAkbar's "ecstilsy."

22. Rizvi, ReligilJl<s ond Intcl/celual History, 147.23. Spear, Jndla. A Modem History, 135; Burke, Akbar, 122-12524. Srivastava, Akbar lIie Greal, vol. II (Agra: Shiva Lal Agarwala Publish-

ers, 1967),313-315, sees Dln-I-1Iahl as "not a religion" but "a commonreligious bond for at least the elite of the various sections of India'spopuliltion"; it was designed to promote imperial unity, See also hisHistory of India, 474-475, 52&--529; Burke, Akbar, 122-129, agrees withSrivastava that "Divine Faith" was not a religion but a Sufi brother-hood; it had no scripture, places of worship, or organization of clergyand was not promulgated among the population at large. Nizami,Akbar and Religioll, 133, 191-]93,2]5-216,243-245,339-340, sees DIn-I-Ilalli as a new religion, if a weak one, based on a "haphazard agglom-era tion of certa in ri tua Is, w hi msica Ily visua lized and pom pouslydemonstrated," and designed to improperly make Akbar a "prophet-king." Qureshi, Akhar. Architcct, 166, agrees with Nizami that Dln-I-ilohl was an ill-conceived attempt to promote loyalty to the ruler; itonly alienated the "natural [Muslim] supporters of the Empire."Badauni's attack on Akbar, written in 1595-1596, just before his death,is entitled MUl1takhab-ul-Tawarlkh ("History with a Vengeance"); seeHarbans Mukhia, Historians and Historiography During the Reign ofAkbar (New Delhi Vikas,1976) for a thorough anillysis of Badauni.

25. See Stephen P Blake, "The Patrimonial-Bureaucratic Empire of theMughals," in The Slate in IndIO, ed. Hermann Kulke (Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press, 1995),278-303; for a description of Akbar's militaryand the 1I11111Sabdarisystem, see Srivastava, Akbar the Greal, II, 217-247;Streusand, Fonnoilon of Ihe Mughal Empire, 139-148.

26. See Streusand, Formaliol1 uf the Mughal Empire, 154-]72, on Akbar's"crisis and compromise."

27 Among those who see little connection between Akbar's religious pol-icy an~i his success ilS an imperial ruler is Khan, Chieftains In theMughol F,rnfllrt', 222-23, who says that Akbar's military "striking capac-Ity" ilnd ilbility to punish rebels, and not his "liberal religious ideas,"kept people loyal; see also IqtJdar AIam Khan, "The Nobility UnderAkbar and the Development of His Religious Policy, 1560-80" Journalof the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ire/and 0968; parts

I & ll): 29-16, who believes that Akbar's religious concessions to non-Muslims \.\'ere tactical devices in response to the hostility of the con-servative Muslims, and not part of a broader vision of a multi-religious Mughal Empire. The more common view, that his religiouspolin' did matter, is expressed by P. S. Bedi, The Mlighal Nobility UnderIIkl'ar (Jalandhar: ABS Publications, 1985), vii, 22, and in Streusand,{"ormation u[ the Mlighal Empire, 123-153.

BII<KI" S, M. IIkbar, the Createst Mogul. New Delhi: Munshiram MonoharlalPublishers, 1989. This brief biography of the ruler tries to strike a bal-ance between Hindu and Muslim historians and is written from amodern Western perspective.

DOI{,\~, SUSAN. Elizabeth I and Religion. London: Routledge, 1994. A clear,brief account which summarizes much of the research of the pastthirtv years.

M,\CCAFFREY,WALLACE.Elizabeth J. London: Edward Arnold, 1993. Thought-ful, readilble biography.

NI?A~11,KHALlQ AHMED.Akbar and Religion. Delhi: Idarah-i-Adabiyat-i-Delhi,1989. Written bv a Muslin scholar hostile to the Din-i-Ilahi who offers. .

some good reasons this faith did not last: